4 ms·
> Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes What about the question "do web pages work any better than they did in 2007?" when we were using full pa
by harryf 11y ago
> Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes
What about the question "do web pages work any better than they did in 2007?" when we were using full page reloads and server side logic instead of Javascipt tricks.
I see so much basic brokenness on the web today from the back button not working to horribly overloaded news websites with mystery-meat mobile navigation I find myself wondering what have we really achieved in the last 9 years? This stuff used to work
- untog 11y agoI think you are looking at the past through incredibly rose-tinted glasses. The web has been a mess for a long time, and we used to have to make sure our computer was set to 800x600 and we were using Internet Explorer 6 in order to even use it.
- TillE 11y agoThat was 1997, not 2007.
- bradyd 11y agoIE 6 was released with Windows XP in 2001 and IE 7 didn't come out until the end of 2006.
- PavlovsCat 11y agoOpera was awesome even in 2000.
- djsumdog 11y ago2007 I was working for a shop that only officially supported IE6. It was a health insurance company too. Your premiums at work!
- coolsunglasses 11y ago>make sure our computer was set to 800x600 Thaaaaaaaat's nonsense. I had relatively high-res CRTs (1600x1200) in the late 90s and early 2000s. My father and I were able to get by with Netscape Navigator and Firefox for quite awhile as well.
- soperj 11y agoFirefox was released in November 2004.
- coolsunglasses 11y agoI know that. The date range was not exclusive. The point was that high resolution CRTs date quite a bit back even for consumer use. We had no problems browsing the web.
- dice 11y agoThe initial release of Phoenix was in 2002. Many long-time Netscape/Mozilla users (myself included) switched very early on.
- coolsunglasses 11y agoI remember even relatively computer un-savvy folk in '98 having 1024x768 monitors.
- lostgame 11y agoEven the first NeXT computer in 1990 was 1120×832...albeit greyscale...still...800x600 died in the mid-90s - especially for professionals.
- DanBC 11y agoHere's a message from 2003. (scroll up) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/uk.comp.os.linux/5c40NHz1nbQ/lMaJ_aiZb9oJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/uk.comp.os.linux/5c40N... > http://www.argos.co.uk http://www.argos.co.uk > "Sorry, the Argos Internet site cannot currently be viewed using Netscape 6 or other browsers with the same rendering engine. > In the meantime, please use a different web browser or call 0870 600 2020 to order items from the Argos catalogue." > Sorry, I think I'll shop elsewhere until you get it fixed... Argos was sniffing the useragent. I think people tried changing the useragent, and it worked fine. This kind of thing wasn't rare, even in 2003.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoI'm pretty sure I had > 1024x768 graphics and have used nothing but Netscape/Seamonkey (because inertia) since the mid '90s.
- bluedino 11y agoSadly, a lot of laptops come with only 1366x768 displays, 20 years later. What a lack of progress.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoLaptops sit in a different corner ( as in corner solutions ).
- collinmanderson 11y agoThis website itself is not far behind, weighing in at 937kb and 57 requests: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/160422_KJ_18KN/1/details/ http://www.webpagetest.org/result/160422_KJ_18KN/1/details/
- jordache 11y agonetwork latency still fails to catch up to human awareness' time resolution. client-side logic, done right is much improved over a server-side solution.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoWhich network and which latency? My local network runs audio way below the Haas limit - I can record over the network without incurring any latency penalty.
- jordache 11y agoare you serious? Are you saying the delay between a full req/res round trip + page redraw is indistinguishable from dynamically updating page elements? If you're drugged up on benadryl, then I'd say yes,
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoEnglish much? I said audio. I provided this as a counterexample to the stated thesis of your post. There exist things that can be done over a network such that latency is not an issue. I am obviously not pulling data over a cross-continental link. FWIW, the protocols I write at work can do a full data pull - a couple thousand elements and growing - in under a half second end to end. I don't know of any HTML/Web based protocols that can even get close to that over localhost. So yeah - we know the Web is an utter pig. My point is that it probably doesn't have to be.
- jordache 11y agoReading comprehension much? The article was specifically about web page payload size. My comment was comparing UX of dynamic client-side logic vs full round trips. You must replied to the wrong comment, I would hope.
- detaro 11y agoComparing local-network performance with "random" cross-internet traffic IMHO isn't very useful, because there is a wide range for internet latency. My wired desktop gets DNS responses from 8.8.8.8 nearly as if it were in my network, in way under 10 ms, ping responses in 2 ms or so. Accessing websites hosted in e.g. Korea takes >100 ms. Add a congested wireless connection somewhere (WLAN or mobile network) and you can add another few hundred ms. And neither cross-continent nor congested wireless latency is going to go away.